Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_04_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 26,2007,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Laurence Horvath,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Melissa Sasso,Public Stenographer Regina Taylor,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO. 2769 Mrs.Eleanor Leichter Donald Mazin Applicant's attorney 1415 Boston Post Road appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Mazin stated that they were there to make permanent a parking area that has been in existence and used since it was temporarily approved 18 years earlier. He stated that in 1994 the Leichters wanted to legalize the parking area. Mr. Mazin entered into the record: Exhibit A,a letter from William Jakubowski the Building inspector dated 9/27/1994 Exhibit B,a photo copy of the 11/19/1987 petition in favor of the parking area. Exhibit C-1,C-2, C-3 ;photos of the common driveway and turn around. Exhibit D,a photo of the rear retaining wall that was removed by the previous owners of 200 E Garden Rd. Exhibit E,photo of the wall in front of the parking area. Exhibit F,Photo of E Garden Rd in front of 200,202 E Garden Rd. Exhibit G,photo of wide driveway at Exhibit H-1 &H-2 photos of another parking area in the neighborhood. Jeffery Shaffer of 200 E Garden Road appeared and addressed the Board. The opposition to the application Mr. Shaffer entered Exhibit I into the record;Exhibit J photo of cars and snow in shared driveway; Exhibit K Mrs.Leichter walking her dogs. Mrs. Camille Odierna of 5 Highridge Road,read a letter into the record,in support of the application. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that the matter must be renoticed to the correct size of the parking area,and the Board's will look into the Board ability to grant the use of Town property. On Motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Ronald Meister the matter was adjourned to the next meeting, Thursday May 24,2007. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO. 2773 Mr.and Mrs.John Phillips John Phillips appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Phillips stated that he bought the house in 1998,and installed an air conditioning condenser unit in 2005. In 2006 he wanted to install a second unit and the contractor told him the original unit was installed illegally. He is before the Board to legalize the AC-1, and get a variance to install AC-2. Mr.Phillips believes that any other place on the property would be more intrusive. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Linda Harrington,seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.John Phillips have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install central air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 2 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 369. The air conditioning condenser unit labeled AC-1 has a front yard of 20 feet,the air conditioning unit labeled AC-2 has a front yard of 21.5 feet where 30 feet is required for each unit pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1); and further the units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for an air conditioning unit in an R-7.5 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-69 and WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.John Phillips submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board feels that while there is one other location on the property that might be suitable for the placement of the air conditioning units,due to the home's location on the corner lot and the limited sideyard area on the west side of the house,it would not be desirable. We do not believe that an acceptable alternative solution is possible without the requested variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variances are not deemed to be substantial because the condensing units are of a minimal size,obscured from view against the east side of the house, and are not expected to result in any noticeable increase in noise to the nearby properties. D. Whether the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the requested variances will have no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The placement of the units and the distance from adjacent properties mitigates any visual or environmental impact by the condensers. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The area variances requested is the result of existing non-conformities in the placement of the house along Maplewood Street and Murray Avenue and are not self created difficulties. F. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable us NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is granted,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with the application. 5. The applicant shall maintain screening and shrubs around the units. APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2774 Mr.and Mrs.Peter Vaughn Mike Csenge Applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that the applicants were before the Board in 1999 and were approved for essentially the same plan but did not proceed with the project. Mr. Csenge stated that the variance they are looking for is less than noticed because the rear yard used in the calculation is actually a side yard and therefore does not require a variance. The front yard variance is for 11 inches a 1%variance request. Alice Malgrande of 758 Forest Avenue appeared and addressed the Board stating that she does not object to the front entry,but has a problem with the second story. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Irene O'Neill,seconded by Ron Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.Peter Vaughn have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to enlarge a front yard entry and erect a 2 story addition to the rear on the premises located at 2 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 223. The front entry as proposed has a front yard of 29 feet 1 inch where thirty feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1),the rear addition has a rear yard of 17 feet 6 inches where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3),the additions have a total lot coverage of 36.6%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-37F and further the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37 B(1),240-37B(3),240-37F,240-69; and WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.Peter Vaughn submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that the proposed entry vestibule will only create a front yard of 29.1 feet where 30 feet is required,the request is minimal. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board feels that due to existing conditions,which were created at the time the dwelling was constructed,the applicants would not be able to achieve their objective without a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance is the minimum to achieve the Applicant's goals. D. Whether the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the requested variances will have no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The entry vestibule addition will not have and should not cause additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The area variances requested is not truly self created. F. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable us NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is granted,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with the application. 5. Impervious surface is to remain 35.6% APPLICATION NO. 4—CASE NO. 2775 Mr.and Mrs.Fred Arnold Arthur Wexler stated for the record that he was previously involved with that property but it has no bearing on the case before the Board. Clark Neuringer the Applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Neuringer stated that they wanted to add a garage with porch over on the side of the house adjacent to the existing garage. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Fred Baron,seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.Fred Arnold have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a garage with porch over on the premises located at 3 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 229,Lot 42. The garage as proposed has a front yard of 34.2 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1)for a residence in an R-20 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-35B(1); and WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.Fred Arnold submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties, since the improvements are located on a dead end street with no view from the Street. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board feels that no acceptable alternative solution is possible without the requested variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance is not deemed to be substantial because of the obscurity from view against the side of the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the requested variance will have no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is not a self created difficulty. F. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable us NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is granted,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with the application. APPLICATION NO. 5—CASE NO. 2777 Martin Bertels Martin Bertels appeared and addressed the Board,he stated that he believes that the location he is requesting is the best place on his property for the condensing unit. The Board discussed the application and suggested that Mr.Bertels explore other locations for the unit as they do not feel that the location is acceptable. On Motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Linda Harrington the matter was adjourned to the May 24,2007 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 6—CASE NO. 2778 Leslie and Dan Cohen Clark Neuringer the Applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Neuringer stated that the owners want to link the house to the existing garage which is only 3 feet from the property line,thus creating the need for a variance. Leslie Cohen appeared and addressed the Board stating that they just moved in and would like to be able to enter the home from the garage with out have to go back outside. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Kronenberg,in favor of the project was read into the record and Marked Exhibit A. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ronald Meister, seconded by Fred Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Leslie and Dan Cohen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one story addition on the premises located at 60 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405,Lot 208. The addition as proposed causes the existing garage to become part of the principal dwelling,therefore,the principal dwelling as proposed has a side yard of 3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-36B(2)(a); and WHEREAS,Leslie and Dan Cohen submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties.The addition merely fills a void that exists between the garage and house. Although the Board is concerned with increased runoff,the Applicants are required by the Town Code to retain additional runoff on their property. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board feels that no acceptable alternative solution is possible without the requested variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance of a side yard of 3 feet where 10 feet is required although significant,is not substantial in light of the fact that the structure within the setback already exists. D. Whether the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the requested variance will have no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is not a self created difficulty. F. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable us NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is granted,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with the application. 5. The current use of the garage must remain unchanged. MINUTES The minutes of March 28,2007 on motion of Fred Baron,seconded by Ronald Meister were approved unanimously 5-0. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill the meeting was adjourned at 11:30pm. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary